PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN // Pakistani authorities have sentenced a doctor who allegedly helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden to 33 years in jail on charges of treason, a move almost certain to further strain ties between Washington and Islamabad.

Shakil Afridi was accused of running a fake vaccination campaign, in which he collected DNA samples, which is believed to have helped the American intelligence agency track down bin Laden in a Pakistani town.

The Al Qaeda leader was killed in a unilateral US special forces raid in Abbottabad in May last year.

"Dr Shakil has been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment and a fine of 320,000 Pakistani rupees [Dh12,800]," said Mohammed Nasir, a government official in Peshawar, where the jail term will be served.

Afridi is the first person to be sentenced by Pakistani authorities in the bin Laden case. No one has yet been charged for helping the Al Qaeda leader take refuge in Pakistan.

The imprisonment will almost certainly anger the US at a sensitive time, with both sides engaged in difficult talks about reopening Nato supply routes to US-led troops in Afghanistan.

US officials had made public appeals for Pakistan, a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid, to release Afridi, detained after the operation that killed bin Laden.

In January, Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, said Afridi and his team had been key in finding bin Laden, describing him as helpful and insisting the doctor had not committed treason or harmed Pakistan.

Dana Rohrabacher, a US congressman, introduced legislation in February calling for Afridi to be granted American citizenship and said it was "shameful and unforgivable that our supposed allies" charged him.

The US raid that killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, just a few hours' drive from the capital Islamabad, humiliated Pakistan's military, which described the move as a violation of sovereignty.

Intelligence cooperation between the US and Pakistan, vital for the fight against militants, has subsequently been cut drastically.

Afridi's prison term could complicate efforts to break a deadlock in talks over the reopening of land routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan.

Pakistan closed the supply routes, also seen as vital to the planned withdrawal of most foreign troops from Afghanistan before the end of 2014, in protest against last November's killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a Nato air attack along the Afghan border.

Before Afridi's sentence, a US official said that the US hoped Pakistan would soon agree to reopen the routes after a Senate panel threatened to cut aid to Islamabad.

"Talks are continuing and we hope to reach a resolution soon," said the official.

Nato has been seeking to compensate for the lack of access in Pakistan with shipments of war supplies via Afghanistan's other borders, but those routes are more expensive.

A western official said fees for use of the routes are under discussion.

A US Senate panel voted to cut aid to Pakistan on Tuesday and threatened to withhold even more cash if the country did not reopen the routes.

The panel voted to cut aid by 58 per cent in the 2013 fiscal year, said the panel's chairman, Patrick Leahy.

That move, along with Afridi's case, highlighted tensions between Pakistan and the US.

Afridi was arrested soon after bin Laden was killed, and has not been publicly heard of since.

Seventeen health workers who worked with Afridi on the vaccination drive were fired in March, according to termination letters, which described them as having acted "against the national interest".

On May 2, one year after bin Laden's death, some of them appeared at the site where bin Laden's house had stood before it was demolished by Pakistani authorities.

Afridi "was very nice to all the people in the team and did his job very diligently", said one of the health workers Naseem Bib, holding one of the notices.

"Yes he was very interested in this house on that day [of the vaccination drive] but I am not sure why."

The sackings underscored Pakistan's lingering fury over the bin Laden affair, which exposed the military to rare public criticism, both because of the presence of the Al Qaeda chief in the country, and the fact that US special forces just swept in and out of the country and faced no resistance.

Pakistan doctor jailed for treason for helping the CIA find bin Laden - The National (http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/pakistan-doctor-jailed-for-treason-for-helping-the-cia-find-bin-laden)

Surprise Surprise.

Parihaka

23 May 12,, 23:20

Surprise Surprise.

Yep. They can't state their position any clearer than that.

Double Edge

23 May 12,, 23:33

Afridi was sentenced to treason because he assisted a foreign intel agency in targetting a Pakistani resident.

Does not matter who the target was.

Afridi's prison term could complicate efforts to break a deadlock in talks over the reopening of land routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
heh, no it won't as its completely irrelevant.

Tronic

24 May 12,, 00:56

Afridi was sentenced to treason because he assisted a foreign intel agency in targetting a Pakistani resident.

Does not matter who the target was.

Actually, it does.

Was Bin Laden just another Pakistani resident? (not to mention, the Pakistanis refused to acknowledge he was even in their country).

A 33 years prison term sounds absurd for someone who helped track the most wanted man in the region, if not the world.

Double Edge

24 May 12,, 02:01

Actually, it does.

Was Bin Laden just another Pakistani resident? (not to mention, the Pakistanis refused to acknowledge he was even in their country).
What difference does that make ?

Whether Pakistan admitted it or not, he was in that country at the time. OBL was resident in Pakistan.

A 33 years prison term sounds absurd for someone who helped track the most wanted man in the region, if not the world.
Soime countries have the death sentence for treason.

If you disagree then show us how what Afridi did does not constitute treason.

Anyone that was actively involved in that affair that still lives in Pakistan are going to be goners.

Am not sure how to defend them. Unless somebody stumps up some mega bucks

Tronic

24 May 12,, 04:52

What difference does that make ?

Whether Pakistan admitted it or not, he was in that country at the time. OBL was resident in Pakistan.

Soime countries have the death sentence for treason.

If you disagree then show us how what Afridi did does not constitute treason.

Anyone that was actively involved in that affair that still lives in Pakistan are going to be goners.

His actions can be portrayed to be treason, or, they can be looked over; it entirely depends on the priorities of the ones judging.

Personally, I see the man help track down a psychopath criminal, who, we presume was a mutual enemy of the Pakistani state aswell; hence, I would disagree that Afridi betrayed his country to an extent of warranting 33 years in prison!

Am not sure how to defend them. Unless somebody stumps up some mega bucks

Or in America's case; threaten to stop dishing out those mega bucks. ;)

Parihaka

24 May 12,, 09:47

we presume was a mutual enemy of the Pakistani state aswell;

You presume incorrectly. Bringing charges of treason against him is an admission on the part of Pakistan that they knew of OBL's presence in their country, that they regarded him as an asset and they wished to keep his presence secret. Basic jurisprudence.

Double Edge

24 May 12,, 12:31

Bringing charges of treason against him is an admission on the part of Pakistan that they knew of OBL's presence in their country, that they regarded him as an asset and they wished to keep his presence secret. Basic jurisprudence.
Explain that to me within the context of Afridi.

Pakistan may have known through other ways but i cannot as yet see this judgement specifically as such an admission.

Double Edge

24 May 12,, 12:41

His actions can be portrayed to be treason, or, they can be looked over; it entirely depends on the priorities of the ones judging.
You raise the possibility of an appeal. Does Afridi have one ?

Personally, I see the man help track down a psychopath criminal, who, we presume was a mutual enemy of the Pakistani state aswell; hence, I would disagree that Afridi betrayed his country to an extent of warranting 33 years in prison!
Consider drone strikes.

Before those drones can unleash anything there as to be some confirmation that targets of value are present at a designated location. That info comes from informants on the ground. Not always but I would imagine a good percent of the time.

What those informants are doing is no different to what Afridi has done.

To my knowledge nobody has been charged by the state with aiding those drone strikes, but that may be because they have not found anybody yet. In any case in the tribal areas, anybody suspected would probably be summarily shot before any trial can convene.

There is an inconsistency here, the drone strikes or even the OBL raid are legal but any locals assisting in those efforts are seen as betraying the country.

Or in America's case; threaten to stop dishing out those mega bucks. ;)
How much is he worth ?

You're trying to tie this into the larger picture of the present impasse in relations.

Tronic

24 May 12,, 18:54

You raise the possibility of an appeal. Does Afridi have one ?

His detention is politically motivated. Talk of an appeal is laughable.

Consider drone strikes.

Before those drones can unleash anything there as to be some confirmation that targets of value are present at a designated location. That info comes from informants on the ground. Not always but I would imagine a good percent of the time.

What those informants are doing is no different to what Afridi has done.

To my knowledge nobody has been charged by the state with aiding those drone strikes, but that may be because they have not found anybody yet. In any case in the tribal areas, anybody suspected would probably be summarily shot before any trial can convene.

There is an inconsistency here, the drone strikes or even the OBL raid are legal but any locals assisting in those efforts are seen as betraying the country.

The whole war on Pakistan's side is riddled with inconsistency. GoP/PA rejoiced at the drones taking down the Mehsuds and co., but when the target becomes Bin Laden, or the Afghan Taliban, a witch hunt is pursued and public pressure is artificially manipulated against NATO and the drones.

I'm in agreement with Pari, Afridi is a 'traitor' and 'betrayed his country', since he helped take out a Pakistani asset.

How much is he worth ?

You're trying to tie this into the larger picture of the present impasse in relations.

The aid cut may be small, for now, but its a quite clear writing on the wall for Pakistan.

ps: are you a lawyer (or practicing to be one)?

Double Edge

24 May 12,, 19:47

The whole war on Pakistan's side is riddled with inconsistency.
Then the question to ask in this context is why are drone strikes ok but not aiding in them.

You could use this grey area to argue that Afridi isn't guilty for what he was charged.

His detention is politically motivated.

GoP/PA rejoiced at the drones taking down the Mehsuds and co., but when the target becomes Bin Laden, or the Afghan Taliban, a witch hunt is pursued and public pressure is artificially manipulated against NATO and the drones.

Right, so its legal in the case of the Mehsuds but apparently not for OBL. Pak policy here is arbitrary.

So i guess your point is that since they chose to apply the law in this case it is an admission of their guilt.

I'm not so sure of that. Its an inconsistent application of the law, that is clear.

Either they apply the law in all cases or none. Ergo Afridi isn't guilty because those that aided in getting the Mehsuds are not guilty.

The aid cut may be small, for now, but its a quite clear writing on the wall for Pakistan.

Senate appropriators unanimously voted Thursday to cut Pakistani aid by $33 million, or $1 million for every year a Pakistani doctor will spend in prison for helping the CIA find Osama bin Laden.

Afridi used a vaccination drive to try to get DNA samples from people inside the compound where bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan. While he was unsuccessful, U.S. officials say he helped an intelligence program that led to the killing of bin Laden.
Very good

ps: are you a lawyer (or practicing to be one)?
Nope to both. Just trying to reason it out in layman's speak.

Firestorm

24 May 12,, 21:32

Till recently, the pakistanis were trying to convince everybody that the Americans were able to locate Osama because of ISI help, and that's why the Americans should have kept them in the loop when they decided to take him out.

So now, if Dr. Afridi is guilty of treason, then so is the ISI. Unless of course they were lying to us in the first place. (which is what everyone believes anyway)

Tronic

24 May 12,, 22:31

Then the question to ask in this context is why are drone strikes ok but not aiding in them.

You could use this grey area to argue that Afridi isn't guilty for what he was charged.

Right, so its legal in the case of the Mehsuds but apparently not for OBL. Pak policy here is arbitrary.

So i guess your point is that since they chose to apply the law in this case it is an admission of their guilt.

I'm not so sure of that. Its an inconsistent application of the law, that is clear.

Either they apply the law in all cases or none. Ergo Afridi isn't guilty because those that aided in getting the Mehsuds are not guilty.

DE, I'm not pleading Afridi's innocence here; he may well be guilty of what Pakistan is charging him for, but he doesn't have to be. As I said earlier, it entirely depends on where PA and GoP's priorities lie.

If it wants to try someone for treason, they can just as easily pick up the likes of Hamid Gul, for his very open and very close association with the Taliban.

Why spare Gul, but pick up Afridi?

To me, it is a very clear indication of where Pakistan's allegiance lies. Osama Bin Laden was their asset, which Afridi helped kill, so Afridi goes. Afghan Taliban are an asset with whom people like Hamid Gul form a cordial Pakistani channel, so Gul stays.

Double Edge

24 May 12,, 23:00

Why spare Gul, but pick up Afridi?
Why go after the Pak taliban but leave out the Afghan Taliban or OBL ? (Rhetorical)

To me, it is a very clear indication of where Pakistan's allegiance lies. Osama Bin Laden was their asset, which Afridi helped kill, so Afridi goes. Afghan Taliban are an asset with whom people like Hamid Gul form a cordial Pakistani channel, so Gul stays.
Yeah, you are looking at the big picture and this is just the latest installment to the series.

They are selective with whom they enforce the law.

They are making a conscious/deliberate choice here.

And the reason for being selective is as you say their allegiance.

Parihaka

24 May 12,, 23:00

Explain that to me within the context of Afridi.

Pakistan may have known through other ways but i cannot as yet see this judgement specifically as such an admission.

Firstly, if I were to say here that NZ has no jet fighter capability I would not be committing treason because it is a matter of public knowledge. It requires that I be revealing a secret.
Secondly, were I to announce that my neighbour down the road wears womens underwear that would not be treason, as it requires the secret be relevant to the state.
Thirdly, if I were to announce he was a known criminal hiding out I would be performing a community service, not committing treason.
It only becomes treason if it were a secret the state knew about and wished to keep secret for its own advantage and by revealing that secret damaged my countries interests.

By finding him guilty they have argued that OBL was a secret asset to the state, and by revealing that secret Afridi has damaged the state.

TopHatter

24 May 12,, 23:10

Till recently, the pakistanis were trying to convince everybody that the Americans were able to locate Osama because of ISI help, and that's why the Americans should have kept them in the loop when they decided to take him out.

So now, if Dr. Afridi is guilty of treason, then so is the ISI. Unless of course they were lying to us in the first place. (which is what everyone believes anyway)
And I think the Pakistanis dropped that line of bullshit because everybody was laughing at their wishful thinking :biggrin:

USSWisconsin

25 May 12,, 00:06

By finding him guilty they have argued that OBL was a secret asset to the state, and by revealing that secret Afridi has damaged the state.

Its not really a revalation that Pakistan is not a US ally, and not even a friendly neutral - but it is significant that this public statement by their governemnt indicates that they considered OBL to be under their protection - and by protecting OBL, they support terrorism against the US. Now, why the hell are we sending them money?

Parihaka

25 May 12,, 00:48

Its not really a revalation that Pakistan is not a US ally, and not even a friendly neutral - but it is significant that this public statement by their governemnt indicates that they considered OBL to be under their protection - and by protecting with OBL they support terrorism against the US. Now, why the hell are we sending them money?

Because as a nation you're hopeless at giving up on lost causes?

Deltacamelately

25 May 12,, 08:53

The PA baffles me. It is probably one of the rarest of professionally trained armies which has tried for so long, and quite successfully, to both milk and punch its proclaimed ally. They seem genius at this double game. There is such a great ridge at its upper echeleons and lower ranks. The common Jawan'ss Unit handbook is full of routines and rhetorics, the top masters are so trecherous in their dealings.

Doktor

25 May 12,, 09:05

Its not really a revalation that Pakistan is not a US ally, and not even a friendly neutral - but it is significant that this public statement by their governemnt indicates that they considered OBL to be under their protection - and by protecting with OBL they support terrorism against the US. Now, why the hell are we sending them money?

Maybe to soften their position and to make them open the roads for the withdrawal.

I have read somewhere it will cost up to 10x more and it will last 3x longer if the withdrawal is done from anywhere else.

That's of course not considering opening a route trough Iran :whome:

tankie

25 May 12,, 10:18

A Dr huh , he should be given a reward for helping to save lives getting rid of that twat laden IMO , jeeez an out n out admission that they (P/govt) knew he was there and were harbouring him :mad:

dave lukins

25 May 12,, 10:31

Its not really a revalation that Pakistan is not a US ally, and not even a friendly neutral - but it is significant that this public statement by their governemnt indicates that they considered OBL to be under their protection - and by protecting with OBL they support terrorism against the US. Now, why the hell are we sending them money?

There is talk of a $million being taken off the aid sent for every year of his sentence.

"A US Senate panel has cut $33m (£21m) in aid to Pakistan in response to the jailing of a Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find Osama Bin Laden".

snapper

25 May 12,, 14:20

Between the OBL raid and Dr Afridi's arrest 20 days elapsed so had the US considered him to be at risk from Pakistani authorities he would have been withdrawn. Yet he remained... and not to serve any future role in the OBL mission. You can be sure that other CIA staff were in and around the area before and possibly during the raid but were withdrawn after it's completion. Why did this Dr remain? The chances are that he didn't even know that he was working for the CIA.

Nor can the stated account of the raid be the whole story in my opinion: When you arrive you crash a helicopter in 'garrison town' and yet you still have 30-40mins to clear a compound from bottom up and gather other materials and clear out BEFORE the local police, fire brigade or whatever turn up? Sure about that?

troung

27 May 12,, 02:37

We ain't going to do anything - so why raise a fuss?

zraver

27 May 12,, 02:52

Afridi was sentenced to treason because he assisted a foreign intel agency in targetting a Pakistani asset.

Fixed, don't be shy we know the truth. I hope Pakistan rots, for damn near a decade now all we've heard is whining out of Pakistan about how GWOT is unfair. Then we find OBL living comfortably amongst the muckety-mucks of the Pakistani army and when found and executed Pakistan dares complain....

Doktor

27 May 12,, 02:55

Comfortably?

British prisons are more comfortable then OBL's penthouse in Pakistan was :cool:

At least they have internet, telephone...

TopHatter

27 May 12,, 03:04

Comfortably?

British prisons are more comfortable then OBL's penthouse in Pakistan was :cool:

At least they have internet, telephone...

As opposed to his fabled cave residence in Afghanistan.

OBL had an actual roof over his head and rudimentary creature comforts.
It wasn't the Taj Mahal by any stretch but neither was he sleeping on a cold cave floor in the border badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And more to the point, for years he didn't have to spend every waking minute wondering when a GBU-24 or AGM-114 was going to knock on his front door.

zraver

27 May 12,, 03:41

Comfortably?

British prisons are more comfortable then OBL's penthouse in Pakistan was :cool:

At least they have internet, telephone...

Yes comfortably- he fathered children, had access to the outside world to command and control AQ, lived as a quest of country supposedly at war with him, likely had high ranking Pakistani visitors and had numerous other visitors, access to medical care, the foods he wanted to eat.... Very comfortable

payeng

29 May 12,, 19:53

Yes comfortably- he fathered children, had access to the outside world to command and control AQ, lived as a quest of country supposedly at war with him, likely had high ranking Pakistani visitors and had numerous other visitors, access to medical care, the foods he wanted to eat.... Very comfortable

..and his wive(s).

Well Doktor, he was not the best person known to use internet and telephone :tongue:

USSWisconsin

29 May 12,, 22:34

I bet he was not too comfortable when his last vistors arrived (ST6)

zraver

31 May 12,, 14:55

I bet he was not too comfortable when his last vistors arrived (ST6)

I dunno they found him in the penthouse suite curled up with his wife... f'ing coward

Firestorm

31 May 12,, 20:57

Tarek Fatah says it like it is. He knows exactly how to push the Pakistani establishment's buttons.

Believe it or not, Dr. Shakil Afridi, the man responsible for locating the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, instead of receiving the $25-million bounty on the jihadi terrorist’s head, has been convicted of treason by Pakistan and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

To understand this bizarre sentencing of a man who should’ve been celebrated as a hero, one has to understand the schizophrenic nature of the Pakistani state itself. Among the community of nations, Pakistan today stands out on one hand as a petty thug brandishing a dangerous weapon, and at other times as a concubine, sleeping with anyone willing to pay for her expensive tastes.

Stung by the humiliation of being caught in the act of providing a safe haven to the world’s number one terrorist, the Pakistani military took its revenge by imprisoning Dr. Afridi and shutting down the supply routes to NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Shamelessly, Pakistan is also demanding a U.S. apology.

The country needs tough love. But no one is willing to wrestle Islamabad to the ground and drag it away to a detox centre where it can be woken from its visions of grandeur and confronted with its true worth — a nation that can offer nothing to the world other than jihadi terrorism.

Pakistan is not the only developing country that seeks aid. However, while others show gratitude, Pakistan responds with arrogance.

One month after its creation in August 1947, its founder, M.A. Jinnah, dispatched a senior finance official to Washington with a begging bowl and a demand for $2 billion in aid. His message: If Pakistan collapses, the Soviets will be able to walk to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

While his official lobbied Washington, back in Karachi, Jinnah was flaunting Pakistan’s geo-strategic location to the U.S. media. He told Margaret Bourke-White of Life magazine:

“America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America … Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed [on] the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.” Bourke-White wrote. Jinnah leaned toward her, dropped his voice to a confidential note, and wagged his finger. “Russia,” he said, “is not so very far away.” The Cold War had barely begun and here was the founder of Pakistan trying to benefit from the impending clash between the USSR and USA.

For 65 years the U.S. has succumbed to Pakistan — until now.

Thanks to congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) as well as Sen. John McCain, the Pakistan bluff has been called. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has referred to Pakistan as “a schizophrenic ally” while Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy said Pakistan’s conviction of Dr. Afridi, was “Alice in Wonderland at best.”

But talk is cheap.

The time has come for Canada, the U.S. and the West to draw a line in the sand. If Pakistan is unwilling to free Dr. Afridi and arrest the al-Qaeida leader Ayman Zawahiri, then we should cut all aid to Islamabad.

The U.S., U.K. and Canada should ban the entry of all Pakistani military officers, serving or retired, as well as their families and children. The thousands of Pakistan civil and military officials who have descended on America and Canada should be asked to leave immediately.

Hit them where it hurts the country’s top brass and the establishment will buckle. If we don’t, a thousand AQ Khans will bloom

TopHatter

31 May 12,, 21:12

Among the community of nations, Pakistan today stands out on one hand as a petty thug brandishing a dangerous weapon, and at other times as a concubine, sleeping with anyone willing to pay for her expensive tastes.
Stealing that

Double Edge

31 May 12,, 21:37

“America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America … Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed [on] the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.” Bourke-White wrote. Jinnah leaned toward her, dropped his voice to a confidential note, and wagged his finger. “Russia,” he said, “is not so very far away.” The Cold War had barely begun and here was the founder of Pakistan trying to benefit from the impending clash between the USSR and USA.
A long standing testament to how they make themselves useful -- for a price.

Fear is a great inducement to get paid. Want money, go scare the americans, want yet more, add the jews & oil sheiks to the list.

Is there any reason they will not continue to do so into the future, lets see but they'll find their niche, that is sure.

For 65 years the U.S. has succumbed to Pakistan — until now
Err no, US cut them off from 91-98, Pressler amendment. HW cut them off, Clinton reinstated it.

Stung by the humiliation of being caught in the act of providing a safe haven to the world’s number one terrorist, the Pakistani military took its revenge by imprisoning Dr. Afridi and shutting down the supply routes to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
Yet another article to conflate two seperate issues.

Shamelessly, Pakistan is also demanding a U.S. apology.
Because of the border incident. They'll never get it but keeps the folks at home off their backs.

The time has come for Canada, the U.S. and the West to draw a line in the sand. If Pakistan is unwilling to free Dr. Afridi and arrest the al-Qaeida leader Ayman Zawahiri, then we should cut all aid to Islamabad.
Sounds like a sweet deal for billions into the future ;)

What did it cost Pakistan, sweet FA.

The U.S., U.K. and Canada should ban the entry of all Pakistani military officers, serving or retired, as well as their families and children. The thousands of Pakistan civil and military officials who have descended on America and Canada should be asked to leave immediately.
The author must realise that these people are all passport holders of the countries concerned.

Somehow doing an Idi Amin or what Kuwait did to Palestianians post the first gulf war does not get done in the west.

Hit them where it hurts the country’s top brass and the establishment will buckle. If we don’t, a thousand AQ Khans will bloom
lol, now the author's jumped into proliferation issues.

Tarek Fatah says it like it is. He knows exactly how to push the Pakistani establishment's buttons.
He's good at talking out his side

snapper

31 May 12,, 21:49

I don't see why you consider the imprisonment of Dr Afridi and shutting down the supply corridor as seperate. The US is an ally fighting a 'common enemy' in Afghanistan. It managed to kill the leader of enemy column in Pakistan with Dr Afridis help. Does Pakistan have the same enemy as the US and the rest of us? Then why are they doing either?

Double Edge

31 May 12,, 22:52

I don't see why you consider the imprisonment of Dr Afridi and shutting down the supply corridor as seperate.
The supply lines were not shut down after OBL, they got shut down as a result of the border incident which still remains to be resolved. That's the only point i'm making here.

The US is an ally fighting a 'common enemy' in Afghanistan. It managed to kill the leader of enemy column in Pakistan with Dr Afridis help. Does Pakistan have the same enemy as the US and the rest of us? Then why are they doing either?
As far as OBL & Afridi are concerned i agree. Pari has made that point very clear.

The thing that gets me is that the Pakistani's had to be aware of the implications yet they still went ahead and did it. In fact the witch hunt started within a month of OBL, that's how we found out that the ISI played no role in getting OBL. Its being going on ever since.

What were/are they thinking.

Nothing has being done to those that helped OBL.

snapper

01 Jun 12,, 00:16

They are both obstruction of an 'ally'.

Doktor

01 Jun 12,, 00:26

The supply lines were not shut down after OBL, they got shut down as a result of the border incident which still remains to be resolved. That's the only point i'm making here.
Was it first such incident?

The thing that gets me is that the Pakistani's had to be aware of the implications yet they still went ahead and did it. In fact the witch hunt started within a month of OBL, that's how we found out that the ISI played no role in getting OBL. Its being going on ever since.
TBH, no matter how wrong they were, they have every right to be major pissed. They are one of the major non-nato allies, yet they got hit without prior notice. Or the international law doesn't apply because OBL was the target?

I still have doubts that the top of the PA and GoP actually knew OBL is in Pakistan and the exact location. Not so sure about the head of ISI. Who should be replaced in any case (if not already).

What were/are they thinking.
Who? In many posts here on WAB I have read that there are 3 powers in Pakistan: civilian, military and ISI, who more often then not have bills to settle between each other.

Nothing has being done to those that helped OBL.
"Those" have names?

snapper

01 Jun 12,, 01:23

"Those" have names?

Yep they call themselves the ISI.

Doktor

01 Jun 12,, 01:26

Yep they call themselves the ISI.

Well, then, send MIB :Dancing-Banana:

snapper

01 Jun 12,, 01:30

"WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - The United States has sent a handful of military officials back into northwestern Pakistan in a sign the two nations may be able to achieve some low-level military cooperation despite a string of confrontations that have left Washington's relations with Islamabad in crisis.

Two U.S. officers have been sent in the last few weeks to the city of Peshawar, close to the border with Afghanistan, a U.S. official said, restoring after a months-long absence a U.S. military presence in an unstable region home to militants fueling violence across the border.

The officers will seek to foster communications between Western troops in Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers as NATO struggles to clamp down on militants who threaten its battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The number of American military in that key region dropped to zero after U.S. aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in late November. NATO labeled the border incident an accident but it enraged Pakistanis and sent already tense ties with the United States into a tailspin.

"I wouldn't call this a watershed moment (but) it's not insignificant that this is happening," the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity."

UPDATE 1-U.S. military trickles back into Western Pakistan - AlertNet (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/update-1-us-military-trickles-back-into-western-pakistan)

tankie

01 Jun 12,, 01:35

Well, then, send MIB :Dancing-Banana:

MIB , ahhh yes , 1 RTR the original men in black . :tank::tankie:

Bigfella

01 Jun 12,, 01:39

Between the OBL raid and Dr Afridi's arrest 20 days elapsed so had the US considered him to be at risk from Pakistani authorities he would have been withdrawn. Yet he remained... and not to serve any future role in the OBL mission. You can be sure that other CIA staff were in and around the area before and possibly during the raid but were withdrawn after it's completion. Why did this Dr remain? The chances are that he didn't even know that he was working for the CIA.

Sounds like he knew who his bosses were & chose to stay for his own reasons as yet unclear.

A PAKISTANI doctor jailed for 33 years for helping the CIA track down Osama bin Laden through a bogus polio vaccination campaign apparently refused a US offer of asylum for himself and his family.

The US government has faced heavy criticism for its handling of the issue since Shakil Afridi was found guilty last week of treason in a tribal court and sentenced to more than three decades' imprisonment.

But the controversial issue became even murkier yesterday when a copy of the formerly secret judgment obtained by local media allegedly revealed he was actually found guilty of conspiring with Islamist militants, and not of treason.

US officials claimed yesterday they offered to resettle Dr Afridi and his family around the time of last year's May 2 Navy SEAL raid on the residential Abbottabad compound where the al-Qa'ida chief had been living for more than five years with his extended family and several trusted couriers.

Dr Afridi refused for reasons that remained unclear, two officials, who asked not to be named, told Reuters yesterday. The White House has refused to comment.

"Before he was arrested, Dr Afridi was offered opportunities to leave Pakistan with his family but he turned those down," one US official said.

"Some may question why he did this but no one, including the doctor, could have foreseen that Pakistan would punish so severely someone whose work benefited the country so much."

Another official said Dr Afridi might have turned down the resettlement offer in the mistaken belief he would be publicly praised for helping track down the terror chief

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pakistani-doctor-shakil-afridi-refused-offer-of-us-asylum/story-e6frg6so-1226375573544)

snapper

01 Jun 12,, 02:17

Being offered an out does not, and should not be taken, to imply that he knew who he who he was working for. Let us assume that his end-of-the-line-employers were the CIA. They do not generaly 'announce themselves'; no intelligence service does. A doctor works for a charity etc... Now perhaps he has 'volunteered' for the charity under instructions but where would the instructions come from? You specificaly do NOT want his connection to the first principal (end of the line) known - for his own safety. It goes through chains that CANNOT be traced back. That's the way it works.

An international charity itself could, of course, offer someone an 'out'; go work in an office in the US. The US government would have no objection as they would know who the end of the line purchaser of his information was. For him though being an offered an 'out' in the US may well have been the first dawning of the truth, that he had in fact ever helped a covert US operation, which again we cannot say with surety.

Bigfella

01 Jun 12,, 02:45

Being offered an out does not, and should not be taken, to imply that he knew who he who he was working for. Let us assume that his end-of-the-line-employers were the CIA. They do not generaly 'announce themselves'; no intelligence service does. A doctor works for a charity etc... Now perhaps he has 'volunteered' for the charity under instructions but where would the instructions come from? You specificaly do NOT want his connection to the first principal (end of the line) known - for his own safety. It goes through chains that CANNOT be traced back. That's the way it works.

An international charity itself could, of course, offer someone an 'out'; go work in an office in the US. The US government would have no objection as they would know who the end of the line purchaser of his information was. For him though being an offered an 'out' in the US may well have been the first dawning of the truth, that he had in fact ever helped a covert US operation, which again we cannot say with surety.

Read the article again. The clear implication in what the US Govt spokesman is saying is that he knew he was helping out the US Govt catch Bin Laden. Specifically which agency he thought he was helping is irrelevant - he knew it was the US Govt. Perhaps he was foolish enough to think that because Pakistan & the US are nominal allies & Bin Laden nominally an enemy of Pakistan that he would recieve congratulation. Who knows. If you really want to spend time & effort speculation about the many & varied ways he might not have known then go for it. The truth, as usual, appears to be the simplest explanation.

snapper

01 Jun 12,, 03:15

Sir I simply do not believe he knew who his end of line employers were, that is why he stayed.

Let me make this clear: IF he knows that he is indirectly working for the CIA then not only is he in danger but the whole chain is in danger. Unless he was a standing operative of some standing it would NOT be risked. Even with operatives in the field there is 99% some diplomatic status is provided in case they need the 'get out of gaol free' card is needed. IF he knew who the principals were without a get out card it is traceable back to source. This does NOT happen.

Why he stayed is because he was not sufficiently aware, for good reasons, of the risks he was taking, nor the dangers that threatened him after his work was done - and his work was done weeks before the raid.

Bigfella

01 Jun 12,, 06:23

Sir I simply do not believe he knew who his end of line employers were, that is why he stayed.

Let me make this clear: IF he knows that he is indirectly working for the CIA then not only is he in danger but the whole chain is in danger. Unless he was a standing operative of some standing it would NOT be risked. Even with operatives in the field there is 99% some diplomatic status is provided in case they need the 'get out of gaol free' card is needed. IF he knew who the principals were without a get out card it is traceable back to source. This does NOT happen.

As you wish.

Why he stayed is because he was not sufficiently aware, for good reasons, of the risks he was taking, nor the dangers that threatened him after his work was done - and his work was done weeks before the raid.

All stated without a shred of apparent doubt.

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 11:27

They are both obstruction of an 'ally'.
Then what is your answer when the Paks ask for an explanation why their soldiers were killed.

Evidently whatever explanation proffered to date was not enough to re-open the routes. They want more.

agree that blocking the routes is obstructing an ally but the reason for that stems from the border incident. And both those articles neglect to mention it. Seperating out cause & effect & attributing it to something else.

This is why mixing the two is misleading.

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 11:41

Was it first such incident?
Convoys have been attacked frequently over the years. The routes might not have been entirely closed but supplies did not always get through.

TBH, no matter how wrong they were, they have every right to be major pissed. They are one of the major non-nato allies, yet they got hit without prior notice. Or the international law doesn't apply because OBL was the target?
If drone strikes are legal then OBL is legal.

Drone strikes do not require prior approval from Pakistan. As it was found in the past whenever they were informed the targets dispersed shortly after.

I still have doubts that the top of the PA and GoP actually knew OBL is in Pakistan and the exact location. Not so sure about the head of ISI. Who should be replaced in any case (if not already).
We can speculate about this one forever :)

The ISI chief has been replaced but only because they did not renew his term. It had been renewed a number of time earlier.

Who? In many posts here on WAB I have read that there are 3 powers in Pakistan: civilian, military and ISI, who more often then not have bills to settle between each other.
Ha!, if i said Pakistan it would still not be clear.

So lets say military + ISI for allowing the case against Afridi to go ahead.

One point is not clear, which pakistani authorities have charged Afridi with treason. The OP's article does not specify that.

"Those" have names?
Whomever and everyone that helped OBL set up base in Abottabad.

Doktor

01 Jun 12,, 12:17

Convoys have been attacked frequently over the years. The routes might not have been entirely closed but supplies did not always get through.
I meant the border incident, not the stopping of convoys.

If drone strikes are legal then OBL is legal.
Who said they are legal?

Drone strikes do not require prior approval from Pakistan. As it was found in the past whenever they were informed the targets dispersed shortly after.
Are you serious about this? Let's say tomorrow some drones fly over Kashmir to kill some suspect, how would India react?

We can speculate about this one forever :)
This what we do here anyway.

The ISI chief has been replaced but only because they did not renew his term. It had been renewed a number of time earlier.
Smooth. Then some say Pakistanis don't know how to play politics ;)

Ha!, if i said Pakistan it would still not be clear.

So lets say military + ISI for allowing the case against Afridi to go ahead.

One point is not clear, which pakistani authorities have charged Afridi with treason. The OP's article does not specify that.
IDK, I have read he has been sentenced by some tribal court. Who can press charges there?

Whomever and everyone that helped OBL set up base in Abottabad.
"Synthax error, the drone can't find the designated target" Name and a photo would help ;)

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 15:03

I meant the border incident, not the stopping of convoys.
Cannot recall, certainly not one of similar magnitude as the one last november.

it is the considered view of this Administration—and it has certainly been my experience during my time as Legal Adviser—that U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.

Are you serious about this? Let's say tomorrow some drones fly over Kashmir to kill some suspect, how would India react?
They are not over Kashmir, they are over Pakistan. My understanding is that there is an agreement in place between the US & Pakistan.

Be aware of Imran & his supporters, they are in the opposition, they are vehemently against drone strikes. There is disagreement with the public but not the status of these operations as far as the present administration in charge is concerned.

This what we do here anyway.
There is nothing to tie the two in a direct fashion. Circumstantially there is plenty.

How do you counter when they say 'we did not know' ?

IDK, I have read he has been sentenced by some tribal court. Who can press charges there?
Ah, i just noticed this para from BF's article, it seems the premise has changed now

The US government has faced heavy criticism for its handling of the issue since Shakil Afridi was found guilty last week of treason in a tribal court and sentenced to more than three decades' imprisonment.

But the controversial issue became even murkier yesterday when a copy of the formerly secret judgment obtained by local media allegedly revealed he was actually found guilty of conspiring with Islamist militants, and not of treason.
Adding controversy on top of controversy.

We don't even have a reliable confirmation of WHAT Afridi has been charged with in the first place.

"Synthax error, the drone can't find the designated target" Name and a photo would help ;)
Some people must have helped him

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 19:15

Sir I simply do not believe he knew who his end of line employers were, that is why he stayed.

Let me make this clear: IF he knows that he is indirectly working for the CIA then not only is he in danger but the whole chain is in danger. Unless he was a standing operative of some standing it would NOT be risked. Even with operatives in the field there is 99% some diplomatic status is provided in case they need the 'get out of gaol free' card is needed. IF he knew who the principals were without a get out card it is traceable back to source. This does NOT happen.

Why he stayed is because he was not sufficiently aware, for good reasons, of the risks he was taking, nor the dangers that threatened him after his work was done - and his work was done weeks before the raid.
He did not stay, he was caught (http://dawn.com/2012/02/24/shakeel-afridis-property-sealedsources/) at the border trying to flee.

After the Abbottabad operation, he had been arrested at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Torkham while trying to escape the country.

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 19:43

Back to square one...and starting to become more clear.

Afridi wasn't charged for treason (yet) but “involvement in anti-state activities” (trumped up charge, no doubt) on May 23, 2011, following reports that he was in league with Lashkar-i-Islam.

Lashkar-i-Islam — a Bara-based militant organisation in Khyber tribal region led by Mangal Bagh — was banned in June, 2008.

“Though the JIT (joint investigation team) contains evidence of the involvement of accused in activities wherein he has been shown acting with other foreign intelligence agencies, all this evidence could not be taken into account for the lack of jurisdiction,” the court said in its short order.

It recommended that Dr Afridi be produced before the relevant court for further proceedings under the law, thus leaving the option open for the government to try him under the treason law that entails death penalty.

A judicial commission headed by Justice (retd) Javed Iqbal has already recommended Dr Afridi’s trial under the treason law, though no formal charge has so far been brought against him for helping the CIA in a fake vaccination campaign to nail down Bin Laden to his abode in the scenic northern city of Abbottabad.

he has the right to appeal

The FCR (Frontier Crimes Regulation) amended in 2011 gives him the right to appeal his conviction in an appellate tribunal.

From what I see there Sten's reply (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/54368-what-legal-rationale-predator.html#post710945) pointing to Krasner is most satisfactory argument wrt sovereignty.

Harold Koh somehow misses that point and was kinda awkward to me after he dissected all the other points, but missed that one.

They are not over Kashmir, they are over Pakistan. My understanding is that there is an agreement in place between the US & Pakistan.
Keep hearing that, but never really found a source that backs that claim.

Be aware of Imran & his supporters, they are in the opposition, they are vehemently against drone strikes. There is disagreement with the public but not the status of these operations as far as the present administration in charge is concerned.
Imran and his supporters will face the same faith as the current administration. Either sort the Talibans, accept the drone attacks or cancellation of alliance which would lead to a possible conflict with USA. Don't think anyone there would play that card. Then again I know little about the situation there.

There is nothing to tie the two in a direct fashion. Circumstantially there is plenty.
With all the intel assets there for a prolonged time, it's hard to digest that.

How do you counter when they say 'we did not know' ?

Not knowing Newton laws doesn't make you immune to their effects :tongue: Or something to that extent.
After all, it is their job and duty to know what is going on on their own turf.

Ah, i just noticed this para from BF's article, it seems the premise has changed now

Adding controversy on top of controversy.

We don't even have a reliable confirmation of WHAT Afridi has been charged with in the first place.
You provided a link later which I haven't read. Hope it clears there.

Some people must have helped him
Sure, but unless they are identified ...
Is there any ongoing investigation within Pakistani structures on this matter?

Double Edge

01 Jun 12,, 23:15

I thought there were few skirmishes with less casualties before, but wasn't sure.
Why did you ask the question ?

From what I see there Sten's reply (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/54368-what-legal-rationale-predator.html#post710945) pointing to Krasner is most satisfactory argument wrt sovereignty.

Harold Koh somehow misses that point and was kinda awkward to me after he dissected all the other points, but missed that one.
So you agree that the drone strikes are legal then ?

With all the intel assets there for a prolonged time, it's hard to digest that.
That's because of all the indirectly linked accusations. It's one of those things that everybody just KNOWS :)

Not knowing Newton laws doesn't make you immune to their effects :tongue: Or something to that extent.
After all, it is their job and duty to know what is going on on their own turf.
A statement of their job & duty. Does not prove they knew.

Sure, but unless they are identified ...
Is there any ongoing investigation within Pakistani structures on this matter?
None to my knowledge to date.

Doktor

02 Jun 12,, 09:11

Why did you ask the question ?
As I said, I wasn't sure.

So you agree that the drone strikes are legal then ?
I am not a lawyer, nor ever wanted to be one.
The rationale that drone attacks are aimed to help Pakistanis as allies because they are not in a position to do so, is chewable. Something that happened with France during WWII. So, it's not even a new practice.

I know that I wouldn't like someone to help my country without our consent. Otherwise it is not a help.

Let's not forget that all we officially get is some noises how they are not happy at all with the attacks.

For argument sake, let's say it is all like it is written in the articles. They all agree the Pakistanis were "consulted".
They provided the intel for some of the attacks, and for others they even pursued USA to conduct them sooner rather then later.

That is not the case with the raid in Abbottabad. Imagine the difference if Obama/Clinton managed to get Zardari/Gilani in the WH. Right after the raid, there would have been a joint press:matrix:

For the OBL's compound attack, noone in Pakistan had any knowledge. At least this is what we got so far.
Well both sides officially claim Pakistanis had no idea.

That's because of all the indirectly linked accusations. It's one of those things that everybody just KNOWS :)
So, it's a given :tongue:

A statement of their job & duty. Does not prove they knew.
Well, whoever failed in those should be replaced with someone more competent, right?

None to my knowledge to date.
Shame. Would have been interesting to follow that one.

Double Edge

02 Jun 12,, 15:50

As I said, I wasn't sure.
Oh, i thought you were trying to see if there was some pattern here. n/m

I am not a lawyer, nor ever wanted to be one.
Don't have to be, all you have to do is examine the bases of arguments for & against. Then throw one at the other and see what holds after.

The rationale that drone attacks are aimed to help Pakistanis as allies because they are not in a position to do so, is chewable. Something that happened with France during WWII. So, it's not even a new practice.
You said in your previous post that you agreed with what Stan said. Therefore you also agree that when opponents to drone strikes bring up soverignty, their basis is weak.

Z, had more to say and was quite confident, what did you make of Z's comment in that thread ?

Z was making the case under rules of war.

I know that I wouldn't like someone to help my country without our consent. Otherwise it is not a help.
Here, you are playing to Imran because you are alluding to public consent & sentiment. If the public does not agree then there is less legitimacy and legality. So check these stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Statistics) out. Notice when Musharaf was in charge there were a total of 10 strikes. '04-'07. He took over in a coup in '99 so without public consent. After he left in '07 they had elections and the govt (since '08) in charge today is popularly elected, note that 99.5% of strikes occurred during this govts time and still contine to this day. Therefore this govt is entrusted to making decisions that affect the state, those decisions might not be popular but they are legitimate.

There is another quirk here, what say the military had in all of this. most people say it is them that are really in charge. To date there have been nearly 300 strikes. How is it possible that this can happen if Pakistan does not want it. Evidently there is a difference between what Pak officials say and what happens on the ground. I don't buy the reason that Pakistan is so powerless that they can do nothing about it. Pakistan is driving things in that theatre as opposed to reacting to them. They've stopped the supply routes presently for nearly 6 months now. They've closed the drone bases that were operating in Pakistan (public pressure but not too detrimental to the mission).

You make me wonder about whether drone strikes will continue post 2014. I cannot see a reason to discontinue otherwise any gains made will be quickly reversed. In the ideal scenario, drone strikes should stop when the cross border attacks stop. This is not meant to be permanent but conditional. Otherwise there will be no end to headaches in Afghanistan and all Pakistan will do is throw up their hands and say non-state actor.

He said-she said plus WL cables...
But there has to be some sort of unofficial agreement isn't it. How else to explain upto 300 strikes and counting.

Let's not forget that all we officially get is some noises how they are not happy at all with the attacks.
For domestic consumption in Pakistan.

For argument sake, let's say it is all like it is written in the articles. They all agree the Pakistanis were "consulted".
They provided the intel for some of the attacks, and for others they even pursued USA to conduct them sooner rather then later.

That is not the case with the raid in Abbottabad. Imagine the difference if Obama/Clinton managed to get Zardari/Gilani in the WH. Right after the raid, there would have been a joint press:matrix:
If you agree that drone strikes are permitted then OBL is in the same category.

Well both sides officially claim Pakistanis had no idea.
Then on the official level this particular case is settled.

So, it's a given :tongue:
Only on the streets, in media trials and a kangaroo court.

Well, whoever failed in those should be replaced with someone more competent, right?
Yes, but this kind of insinuation usually wants to target the head and assign responsiblity. The Israeli's face similar kind of arguments with the Pals. I've also seen the same kind of thinking in a couple of famous cases in my country as well. The thinking pattern & argumentation is very similar. The head had to know and is responsible. All emotionally driven rather than logic with boatloads of rhetoric & hot air to go with it. Add politics to the mix and the issue never goes away. Always ready to be sprung whenever by any interested party and its guaranteed there will be instant knee jerk reactions from the masses.

Doktor

02 Jun 12,, 17:43

Oh, i thought you were trying to see if there was some pattern here. n/m
Wanted to see if they reacted and how.

Don't have to be, all you have to do is examine the bases of arguments for & against. Then throw one at the other and see what holds after.
Sometimes logic fails the legal ;)

You said in your previous post that you agreed with what Stan said. Therefore you also agree that when opponents to drone strikes bring up soverignty, their basis is weak.
I said his pointing to Kresner is most satisfactory to the discussion S2 started. I also expressed confusion why US legal advisor missed that point, while he took enough time and words to back the other points.

Z, had more to say and was quite confident, what did you make of Z's comment in that thread ?
What?

Z was making the case under rules of war.
Sorry, in a mess at home, so my brain cells fail me. If you provide a link, it would be a help.

Here, you are playing to Imran because you are alluding to public consent & sentiment. If the public does not agree then there is less legitimacy and legality. So check these stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Statistics) out. Notice when Musharaf was in charge there were a total of 10 strikes. '04-'07. He took over in a coup in '99 so without public consent. After he left in '07 they had elections and the govt (since '08) in charge today is popularly elected, note that 99.5% of strikes occurred during this govts time and still contine to this day. Therefore this govt is entrusted to making decisions that affect the state, those decisions might not be popular but they are legitimate.
I am not playing on any card. If my government says they agreed to receive the help, then the helper is not to be blamed, they help my government. I can vote them out if I disagree with what they did, or try a rebellion if nothing else works.

WRT to Pakistan, even if we can conclude there is some form of consent from the elected officials over drone attacks, the raid is something different - it was not a drone attack, it was not in the northern parts of the country and most importantly it seems there was no consent from the elected officials for the action.

Elected officials is the key here. Unlike France in WWII, Pakistan has them.

If USA and Pakistan are allies, and USA is helping Pakistan, there should have been some sort of prior notice, no?
If WH was concerned their action will go bust if they informed their Pakistani counterparts, they could do it differently. Too bad Americans didn't feel confident their diplomacy will work. At least this is how I get it.
The way it was done left their allies ashamed. Not a good thing to do to an ally. Even of it is an ally only on paper.

There is another quirk here, what say the military had in all of this. most people say it is them that are really in charge. To date there have been nearly 300 strikes. How is it possible that this can happen if Pakistan does not want it. Evidently there is a difference between what Pak officials say and what happens on the ground. I don't buy the reason that Pakistan is so powerless that they can do nothing about it. Pakistan is driving things in that theatre as opposed to reacting to them. They've stopped the supply routes presently for nearly 6 months now. They've closed the drone bases that were operating in Pakistan (public pressure but not too detrimental to the mission).
So why they change their attitude? If the public pressure is not detrimental?

You make me wonder about whether drone strikes will continue post 2014. I cannot see a reason to discontinue otherwise any gains made will be quickly reversed. In the ideal scenario, drone strikes should stop when the cross border attacks stop. This is not meant to be permanent but conditional. Otherwise there will be no end to headaches in Afghanistan and all Pakistan will do is throw up their hands and say non-state actor.
From where this drone attacks will be conducted? Didn't USA signed they won't use A-stan as a base for drone attacks on third countries? Or this was dismissed?

But there has to be some sort of unofficial agreement isn't it. How else to explain upto 300 strikes and counting.
You seem to think drone attacks and the raid are the same.

For domestic consumption in Pakistan.
So they have two versions of every event? Too bad today the information travels only slower then the gossips.

If you agree that drone strikes are permitted then OBL is in the same category.
We go in circles here. The only logic I see in that claim is "it was done once so it can be replayed if needed".

Then on the official level this particular case is settled.
Seems like it.

Only on the streets, in media trials and a kangaroo court.

Kangaroo court? You mean the tribal one?

Yes, but this kind of insinuation usually wants to target the head and assign responsiblity. The Israeli's face similar kind of arguments with the Pals. I've also seen the same kind of thinking in a couple of famous cases in my country as well. The thinking pattern & argumentation is very similar. The head had to know and is responsible. All emotionally driven rather than logic with boatloads of rhetoric & hot air to go with it. Add politics to the mix and the issue never goes away. Always ready to be sprung whenever by any interested party and its guaranteed there will be instant knee jerk reactions from the masses.
Lost me here.

snapper

03 Jun 12,, 11:49

Then what is your answer when the Paks ask for an explanation why their soldiers were killed.

Are you suggesting that whenever a 'friendly fire' or 'blue on blue' occurs we all pack up and go home?

Double Edge

03 Jun 12,, 17:27

Wanted to see if they reacted and how.
They did not cause any notable interruptions. Certainly not as many in just one incident.

I said his pointing to Kresner is most satisfactory to the discussion S2 started. I also expressed confusion why US legal advisor missed that point, while he took enough time and words to back the other points.
As far as the US is concerned its legal and Koh is explicitly stating that. There have been 300 drone strikes to date. So pakistan has allowed those. That to me says, when it started both were in agreement and it stayed that way till they got to 300.

if Pakistan is having second thoughts about it now then it does not change what has happened in the past. Note that i don't know how strongly against those in charge in Pakistan think about this as the strikes still continue (13 so far in this year), just the opposition. It makes for good politics. I'm trying to strip the political element out of this discussion and remain with the objective.

What?

Sorry, in a mess at home, so my brain cells fail me. If you provide a link, it would be a help.
here (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/54368-what-legal-rationale-predator-2.html#post735047)

I am not playing on any card. If my government says they agreed to receive the help, then the helper is not to be blamed, they help my government. I can vote them out if I disagree with what they did, or try a rebellion if nothing else works.

WRT to Pakistan, even if we can conclude there is some form of consent from the elected officials over drone attacks, the raid is something different - it was not a drone attack, it was not in the northern parts of the country and most importantly it seems there was no consent from the elected officials for the action.

Elected officials is the key here. Unlike France in WWII, Pakistan has them.

If USA and Pakistan are allies, and USA is helping Pakistan, there should have been some sort of prior notice, no?
If WH was concerned their action will go bust if they informed their Pakistani counterparts, they could do it differently. Too bad Americans didn't feel confident their diplomacy will work. At least this is how I get it.
The way it was done left their allies ashamed. Not a good thing to do to an ally. Even of it is an ally only on paper.
I don't think the Pak govt admits to their public that the US is 'helping' them with drone strikes as that would be an admission of weakness to their own people. The understanding seems to be just between the two administrations alone. Instead Pakistan would be pointing to the support the US offers them in a number of other areas, monetary as well as material. The long relationship between the two countries etc.

Why is the raid different ? One is done by machines the other by a humans. The result is the same just the means is different.

In both cases the sovereignity issue does not come up as they have not prevented these elements taking up residence in their country. OBL was a one off incident in any case.

So why they change their attitude? If the public pressure is not detrimental?
Damage control. They were weakened as a result of OBL. The people lost their faith in their army. Last Sept their ambassador (at the time) in the US started talking about an imminent coup by the army but it never happened.

From where this drone attacks will be conducted? Didn't USA signed they won't use A-stan as a base for drone attacks on third countries? Or this was dismissed?
You're right. i do recall reading articles on the SPA mentioning that Afghanistan would not be used as a base to attack others. This indicates that 2014 is the deadline for when drone strikes end.

Its an Afghan call, if the cross border attacks continue or increase they will have to reconsider that position.

You seem to think drone attacks and the raid are the same.
Ah, i think i see what you are trying to say.

The reaction of the Pak public to those two was very different.

The resulting action by the Pakistani state thereafter as well.

So how can they be the same :)

So they have two versions of every event? Too bad today the information travels only slower then the gossips.
The joke is when anything happens in pakistan there are at least eight explanations for it :biggrin:

We go in circles here. The only logic I see in that claim is "it was done once so it can be replayed if needed".
yes, as sovereignity isn't an issue or till such time as Pakistan takes the efforts to address this themselves.

Kangaroo court? You mean the tribal one?
A kangaroo court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court) is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".

I mean that circumstantial evidence does not provide a sound basis to make charges.

This is what the street, trial by media largely use as their basis.

Lost me here.
There is no direct evidence as yet linking those in charge of Pakistan with helping OBL take up residence in Pakistan.

Double Edge

03 Jun 12,, 17:31

Are you suggesting that whenever a 'friendly fire' or 'blue on blue' occurs we all pack up and go home?
Does number of casualties in one fell swoop play any role in there ?

Depends on the quality of the realtionship between the two.

You are saying had that relationship been stronger the border incident might not have been used to stop the supply routes.

That relationship took a blow after OBL.

And that is how you link the two up ?

Indirect in this case isn't it.

Doktor

04 Jun 12,, 00:55

They did not cause any notable interruptions. Certainly not as many in just one incident.
Are the interruptions proportional to the incidents?

As far as the US is concerned its legal and Koh is explicitly stating that. There have been 300 drone strikes to date. So pakistan has allowed those. That to me says, when it started both were in agreement and it stayed that way till they got to 300.
Maybe they agreed 300 strikes total or maybe the Pakistanis were not happy with (all) the targets. Another maybe that strikes me is that drones were not hitting those on Pakistani lists.

Z, had more to say and was quite confident, what did you make of Z's comment in that thread ?
What?

Z was making the case under rules of war.
Sorry, in a mess at home, so my brain cells fail me. If you provide a link, it would be a help.here (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/54368-what-legal-rationale-predator-2.html#post735047)
So, what did I do with Z's comment?:confused:

I don't think the Pak govt admits to their public that the US is 'helping' them with drone strikes as that would be an admission of weakness to their own people. The understanding seems to be just between the two administrations alone. Instead Pakistan would be pointing to the support the US offers them in a number of other areas, monetary as well as material. The long relationship between the two countries etc.
Admission of weakness? With a slightly different approach they could present all the events as a victory.

Why is the raid different ? One is done by machines the other by a humans. The result is the same just the means is different.

They are all done by humans.
I think I told you my guess behind that one - the raid didn't have OK from the elected Government.

This might be a weird precedent. By the same logic we can see US drones in Mexico fighting drug cartels.

In both cases the sovereignity issue does not come up as they have not prevented these elements taking up residence in their country. OBL was a one off incident in any case.
To put this in analogy, it will be like this:
You work in a jail as an executioner and you have executed more then 200 people. One day you spot a fugitive on the street. You follow him for one months and one day you decide not to call the cops (as usual they will come too late and the fugitive will escape), but just get your gun and shoot him on the spot.
You can blame the guards for letting him escape, but will that make your action legal?

Damage control. They were weakened as a result of OBL. The people lost their faith in their army. Last Sept their ambassador (at the time) in the US started talking about an imminent coup by the army but it never happened.
If all that was not enough, the people there should have lost their faith in their army few weeks later when that naval base got raided for 18 hours. Not to mention they've lost their capabilities to make a descent coup :rolleyes:

You're right. i do recall reading articles on the SPA mentioning that Afghanistan would not be used as a base to attack others. This indicates that 2014 is the deadline for when drone strikes end.

Its an Afghan call, if the cross border attacks continue or increase they will have to reconsider that position.
And sign a new deal. Or start a war with Pakistan.

Ah, i think i see what you are trying to say.

The reaction of the Pak public to those two was very different.

The resulting action by the Pakistani state thereafter as well.

So how can they be the same :)
Their reaction shows something was not done right.

The joke is when anything happens in pakistan there are at least eight explanations for it :biggrin:
We have a saying here "every joke is 1/2 truth", which will leave you with 4 explanations - one for the president, PM, army and ISI.

yes, as sovereignity isn't an issue or till such time as Pakistan takes the efforts to address this themselves.
They seem to think it is. The only thing different then with drones is they clearly had no idea what will happen.

A kangaroo court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court) is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".

I mean that circumstantial evidence does not provide a sound basis to make charges.

This is what the street, trial by media largely use as their basis.
Thanks.

There is no direct evidence as yet linking those in charge of Pakistan with helping OBL take up residence in Pakistan.
Speaking of damage control, everyone is mad on those in charge.

What boggles my mind is Pakistani's insincerity and why do they do that. Looks like they don't know where they are going.
The only explanation I can think of at the moment is corruption.

From what I have read around here and in articles around the web they are not that sloppy if they have an agenda.
After all they managed to have top 2 economies as their allies.

n21

04 Jun 12,, 19:11

There is no direct evidence as yet linking those in charge of Pakistan with helping OBL take up residence in Pakistan.

If the term "those in charge of Pakistan" is referring to the GOP, then yes, they are definitely not the culprit.

If it refers to PA, then I think it is not that straight forward. Every one knows that PA is considered "frontline ally of WOT" and it has handed over AQ No.3,4, .. N to US for truck loads of money. Even OBL knew that.

Why was OBL so confident that he will not be caught, that he stayed the longest in a PA Garrison town? of all the places. If the stay was short, then it may become a coincidence. But 5 years. He wasn't even moving around. The fact that a new house was built, he had clear plans to stay put. He didn't even bother to have a temporary accommodation.

Talibans are Pashtuns, his allies. He preferred to be in a Punjabi city rather than a Pashtun region. He had great confidence over his security.

Most likely PA knew he was there and probably someone from PA informed the CIA to look in to PA's back yard for 25 million.

Double Edge

04 Jun 12,, 20:32

If it refers to PA, then I think it is not that straight forward. Every one knows that PA is considered "frontline ally of WOT" and it has handed over AQ No.3,4, .. N to US for truck loads of money. Even OBL knew that.
ok

Why was OBL so confident that he will not be caught, that he stayed the longest in a PA Garrison town? of all the places. If the stay was short, then it may become a coincidence. But 5 years. He wasn't even moving around. The fact that a new house was built, he had clear plans to stay put. He didn't even bother to have a temporary accommodation.

Talibans are Pashtuns, his allies. He preferred to be in a Punjabi city rather than a Pashtun region. He had great confidence over his security.
There are many observations like this that can be made. But its still circumstantial.

Would the reaction by the US after have been the same or different had a direct link been exposed ?

I think it would have been different as it would have been difficult to ignore.

Most likely PA knew he was there and probably someone from PA informed the CIA to look in to PA's back yard for 25 million.
this (http://my.firedoglake.com/rjhillhouse/2011/08/08/bin-laden-turned-in-by-informant-courier-was-cover-story/) ?

n21

04 Jun 12,, 22:06

Would the reaction by the US after have been the same or different had a direct link been exposed ?

I think it would have been different as it would have been difficult to ignore.

Like ISI chief General Mahemood during 9/11 and his relationship with Mohd Atta?

this (http://my.firedoglake.com/rjhillhouse/2011/08/08/bin-laden-turned-in-by-informant-courier-was-cover-story/) ?

It is my guess as to what happened. If the doctor was truly valuable, the Pakistanis would have never come to know about him.

Regarding the link, it would difficult for me to believe PA "supported" US in the raid. If they want to back stab OBL, they would have taken him closer to the Afghanistan border, thereby proving their claim about OBL being in Afghanistan.

Not let US raid PA's "Sandhurst" in the name of covert deal. For PA, a macho image is everything.

Article has multiple pages. You'll have to click "Next" at the bottom several times to read the full article.

Some excerpts

He was accused of having conducted a fake polio vaccination campaign in the Bilal Town area of Abbottabad (in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) between March 15 and 18 and April 21 and 23, 2011 to get DNA samples of the residents of the strange compound where Osama was hiding.

Afridi is reported to have assisted the CIA in the final confirmation of Osama's hideout by speaking on the phone to the supposed owner of the compound, Arshad Khan alias Sheikh Abu Ahmed al Kuwaiti, who was the most trusted courier for the slain Al Qaeda leader.

Using satellite photos and voice recordings, the CIA sought to identify the inhabitants of the fortified compound. The samples of Kuwaiti's voice, which were taken by Afridi, actually provided the final confirmation to the CIA that the man seen by their drones inside the compound was none other than Osama bin Laden.

Dr Afridi was held hostage by Lashkar-e-Islami militants for several weeks and released only after his family paid a huge ransom.

Since his wife Imrana Ghafoor (who was the headmistress at a government-run girls school) was an American national, Dr Afridi left for the United States along with his family in 2008.

According to his confession to his Pakistani interrogators, Dr Afridi claimed he was introduced to the CIA by the British humanitarian group, Save the Children, which helps support children in developing countries.
...

His CIA contact was known to him as 'Peter' whom he would pass on information through a satellite phone. According to his interrogators, Dr Afridi hired office space in Abbottabad, arranged for the testing of blood samples at a local hospital on cash payment and also hired the services of a lady health worker, who had no idea for whom she was working for.

Dr Afridi was told by Peter to focus on Bilal Town and Nawan Shehr. In April, he was told to try obtaining samples from the house where Osama bin Laden was suspected to be a resident.

Although he did not know why he was being asked to do so, Dr Afridi began to suspect a high value target lived there. He asked for, and received, an extra $10,000 for this task.

On receiving the money on April 26, 2011, he was asked by Peter to try and obtain blood samples of all residents of the compound.

In the event he was not permitted to do so, he was provided a cell number, and instructed to ask his female assistant to call and speak in Urdu with some English thrown in, as if she was more comfortable in English.

After their failure to directly approach residents of the compound, Afridi's assistant made the phone call on the evening of April 26. A male voice responded and handed her over to Khairee, one of Osama's three wives.

They spoke in English and when the puzzled female assistant found that she could not make sense of what Khairee was saying, she handed the phone back to Dr Afridi.

Khairee continued to speak nonstop in English for a minute or so and then concluded with some foul language in Arabic.

According to Dr Afridi's interrogators, he was instructed to tape the conversation. He handed over his cell phone as well as the tape to Peter after the conversation was over.

He also decided to make a copy of the taped conversation for himself as well, that was later seized by operatives of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence.

On May 2, US Navy Seals arrived in two helicopters, raided bin Laden's hideout, killed him and eventually buried him at sea. Peter flew out of Pakistan the same day.

Dr Afridi disappeared after the operation and went underground. He was arrested by Pakistani security agencies at the Torkham border on May 22 while trying to cross over to Afghanistan, 20 days after bin Laden had been killed.

Double Edge

04 Jun 12,, 23:44

Like ISI chief General Mahemood during 9/11 and his relationship with Mohd Atta?
Do you have a reliable source for that ?

I see this TOI one (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-09/india/27243646_1_isi-link-evidence-india) which is quite explosive. But cannot find any mention of the same in wapo or NYT. The closest i got was this (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/29/international/asia/29PROB.html?pagewanted=all).

He happened to be in the US on the morning of 9-11 talking to the then intelligence commitee chairman. Eh ?

or the airlift at Kunduz?

4:40 onwards in this BBC documentary.
This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift) is good and direct. Rashid's excerpt is quite clear there.

A good example of negotiating with a gun pointed to the head.

It is my guess as to what happened. If the doctor was truly valuable, the Pakistanis would have never come to know about him.
How did they catch him so soon though.

Regarding the link, it would difficult for me to believe PA "supported" US in the raid. If they want to back stab OBL, they would have taken him closer to the Afghanistan border, thereby proving their claim about OBL being in Afghanistan.

Not let US raid PA's "Sandhurst" in the name of covert deal. For PA, a macho image is everything.
I think that link is crazy :)